According to Dallas News, a Texas gun owner shot a man who attacked him at a convenience food store.

Witnesses report that a drunk man stumbled into the EZ Trip Food Store in Dallas, Texas and began harassing customers. He repeatedly slapped one customer in the face until the customer ran from the store, so the drunk man switched his sights to another target. He began punching another man in the face and followed the fleeing man into the parking lot.

That was the biggest mistake of his life. The punched customer, who was a concealed license carrier, pulled out a gun and shot the drunk man. He hung around and waited for police to arrive and was taken into custody without any trouble.

The drunk man was taken to a local hospital, but he was pronounced dead roughly an hour after the shooting took place. The names of both individuals have not been released.

One witness called the shooting, people being crazy, and another told Dallas News, It wasnt worth the loss of life. Despite these unsupportive witnesses, the shooter probably has a fairly good chance of walking. Texas Stand Your Ground Law states that a citizen doesnt have to retreat if:

* He had the right to be at the location.

* He did not provoke the assailant.

* He was not engaged in criminal activity at the time.

Was shooting an obviously intoxicated and punch-happy drunk man excessive? Possibly. Was it legal? Looks like it.

How badly of a beating was the retreating permit holder, being pursued by the assailant, obligated to take in the eyes of this writer? If its some young strong guy, attacking someone much older than them,,,or or maybe a peaceful man who isnt that good with his fists.

Despite what you wrote, I would rather pull out my concealed weapon and hold it casually pointed down at the ground and give the attacker a chance to back away. If they continue to threaten or attempt to attack, then BLAM!

“The article doesnt say if the shooter first tried to use the gun to threaten the drunk. It reads like the shooter drew his gun and shot. I hope that isnt what happened.”

I don’t know your level of training, but here in Texas they are very clear. If you pull your gun, you better be able to prove that you were scared for your life (whether true or not). The best way to prove it is to put some lead into the bad guy. The worst thing to do is play games, like warning shots or extremity shots, or trying to hold a person at gunpoint (which requires a very high level of training and is not expected of a concealed carry person).

Yes, Texas is a very gun-friendly state (thank you Governor Perry, even if I hate you otherwise for wanting to put toll booths on our freeways), but even here we have limits and having a concealed doesn’t give you the right to use it to intimidate people. In other words, if you’re going to show it, then use it, and if you’re going to use it, use it to kill. That’s how things work, if you don’t want your life to get turned upside down.

Agree, based on the article. If there’s a female DA and I’m on a grand jury, I’ll trust the news article first (i.e., Zimmerman).

In any case, us conservatives need to start throwing our weight around on juries and grand juries - we need to simply say that we’re not going to wreck the lives of people that simply stumble into a crappy situation (i.e., Zimmerman again). If the guy with the concealed is a jerk - that’s different, but that’s also very, very, rare.

“Despite what you wrote, I would rather pull out my concealed weapon and hold it casually pointed down at the ground and give the attacker a chance to back away. If they continue to threaten or attempt to attack, then BLAM!”

Sorry, but here in Texas you will be sued for EVERYTHING YOU HAVE if you try that stunt. The bottom-line, here at least, is that if you show your piece, you better be able to prove it was needed to save your life (or something close) - otherwise they’ll sue you for thinking you’re some kind of Rambo.

Hell, no. Punch-happy drunks kill people with their fists and feet all the time. Just last month a guy near here ended up in critical condition and in a coma because a drunk in a bar took a disliking to him, followed him out to the parking lot, and hit him *once*, causing him to fall and hit his head on a concrete parking berm. The poor s.o.b. is probably going to have permanent brain damage and spend months in rehab just because some dumb-ass was drunk and "punch-happy."

Being drunk is no excuse. When you physically attack someone, you get what's coming to you, up to and including getting your brains blown out.

Off topic but... Toll booths are a good idea. The Federal government has has states by the short hairs for a long time thanks to the promise of Federal highway money or the threat of its loss. Toll booths are a good way to wean a state off that dangerously abused Federal carrot.

Not to mention a toll booth is like a fair tax- you only pay for what you use.

Is it a hassle? Sure, it's annoying, but it seems a more constitutional method of raising revenue to maintain the roads than accepting federal highway funds.

I have no problem with tolling, as long as it’s done in a FREE MARKET.

That means, no SWEETHEART DEALS, such as using Eminent Domain to clear a right-of-way for one company to build and operate a toll road for 75 years, but not doing the same for a second or third company that wants to provide the same service (for less).

Likewise, I’m not too hot (to say the least) on non-compete clauses, which restrict any kind of parallel improvement in the “sphere-of-influence” that might take away from toll revenue.

Get rid of the above, and, I too, would be ALL FOR toll roads. In fact, that’s how airlines operate these days - no airline has a protected route and if one airline tries to overcharge, competitors move in. Show me the same for toll roads, anywhere in the world, and I’ll retract my opposition to toll roads.

But now we have the 407 ETR in Canada that has the above sweetheart deals, and they are charging 30 cents PER MILE to drive (at least 10 times what it costs to operate the road). Why - because their contract forbids competition, but allows them to charge as much as they want. That is what Perry attempted (with some success) to do to Texas. Why he embarked on that will likely never be known - although corruption is the most likely reason.

So, until toll roads actually operate in a free-market environment, I prefer to pay an essentially non-corrupt gas tax for my roads.

I dont know your level of training, but here in Texas they are very clear. If you pull your gun, you better be able to prove that you were scared for your life . . . .

____________________________________________________

This is just not so. You don’t have to be afraid of losing your life only of serious bodily injury. Breaking your jaw or losing an eye is serious injury in my book. In Texas you don’t have to settle for injury you just shoot the guy and let him worry about it.

35
posted on 07/08/2012 8:04:26 PM PDT
by JAKraig
(Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)

“This is just not so. You dont have to be afraid of losing your life only of serious bodily injury. Breaking your jaw or losing an eye is serious injury in my book. In Texas you dont have to settle for injury you just shoot the guy and let him worry about it.”

I guess it depends on how good your instructor is. Yes, you don’t have to prove you’re in fear of your life, if you want the police to leave you alone - but the tort end is a different story. You’ll be sued for EVERYTHING you own if you cannot show you feared for your life. Our laws do help out a lot in that area (in California, even showing you feared for your life is not enough - you have to draw the guy into your bedroom before you shoot, if you want a to survive their tort system - as an instructor once told me). In Texas it’s better, but if you played footsie with the guy, you sure as heck better have a good attorney, and a deep bank account - but if you shoot to kill, your defense is pretty much secured.

So much for liberal spin... Particularly if there was an imbalance of force (the victim was smaller, older, frailer than the drunk) that should be part of the equation as to whether the gunfire was "excessive".

I'm 75, 5'4", and have gout (so I can't run away). Assault and battery on me is not a healthy idea -- no matter how much you had to drink...

Despite what you wrote, I would rather pull out my concealed weapon and hold it casually pointed down at the ground and give the attacker a chance to back away. If they continue to threaten or attempt to attack, then BLAM!

I agree with what you wrote except I would never point the gun at the ground. If I was sure he was unarmed, I’d give him a chance to live but I would not hesitate, if he decided it was time for him to keep up the violence and die, after seeing my weapon trained on him.

People can be murdered with a perp’s bare hands and I could not stand by while armed and permit that to happen to me or a helpless victim. Shooting someone for me, is serious business, so giving him a chance to repent and run if he is unarmed, is what I would need to do, too.

The shooter, in this case, was being attacked by the idiot and he did not have time nor choice in the matter. The perp could have disarmed him if he did not shoot once he pulled his gun. Bang.

and given close-quarters interactions. If you draw, you probably best be shooting.

At the training that I took the instructor made it very clear that we should be ready to fire at the count two. Count one is when the weapon clears the holster. Count two is when it is rotated toward the target while being still near the holster. From that moment on the weapon tracks the target to the best of your abilities. You most certainly do not point it toward the ground, the sky, or your foot. This link discusses positions and mentions that Low Ready on draw is detrimental. At the training we used it only after the exercise was complete, before reholstering.

Considering what you typed, considering how many times I’ve hit my head, or had it hit and been knocked out, I’m lucky I don’t suffer from anything specifically from that (though the people I know will vehemently argue different).

45
posted on 07/08/2012 11:22:09 PM PDT
by wastedyears
("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")

Hell, no. Punch-happy drunks kill people with their fists and feet all the time. Just last month a guy near here ended up in critical condition and in a coma because a drunk in a bar took a disliking to him, followed him out to the parking lot, and hit him *once*, causing him to fall and hit his head on a concrete parking berm. The poor s.o.b. is probably going to have permanent brain damage and spend months in rehab just because some dumb-ass was drunk and "punch-happy."

My father died two years ago today, less than four days after falling down in a parking lot and hitting his head on the pavement.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.